|
|
|
|
I learned years ago to return null instead of crapping out when I couldn't return an object.
Then there's LINQ with FirstOrNull(), etc.
"Nullable references" sounds like solution looking for a problem. Or another pointless "pattern".
Like having to deal with Null value checkboxes when all you ever use is dual-state.
If you have to think about it, you probably don't need it; just something else that uses primitives one is already familiar with; and not exactly labor-saving.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
I am starting to think you might be right...
Particularly as I realize it seems impossible to implement both IList and IList<T> and predictably support both nullable reference type and non nullable reference type... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm in the market for a new monitor. My current home monitor is a 20" flat panel I bought several years ago. I lost my right eye in a fall last year, and anything I can do to reduce eye fatigue is A Good Thing.
I'm thinking a 24" or 27" would be easier to read, and probably 4K resolution.
My questions:
Q1: Does a curved monitor help with our typical work style (lots of text), or is this just a gimmick? I have an intuitive feeling it might help me, since I turn my head a lot more now when working. A curved screen would seem to also reduce depth of focus changes somewhat as I turn.
Q2: Any general suggestions on manufacturers or models who are good, who to avoid?
Thanks for your help.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I just recently replaced a 20" flat screen that I had been using for almost 20 years with two 24" Samsung CF390 screens. If I'd have known how awesome two monitors were, I'd have done it decades ago.
Whether a curved or larger monitor would work for your situation, only you will know that, regardless of what folks here say.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
I stopped in at Best Buy to take a look. The curved monitors looked nice, but it was hard to tell how they would be to work with. They were playing demo video, and the sales drone didn't want to connect them to an actual PC so I could see what text looked like.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Gary R. Wheeler wrote: ...an actual PC so I could see what text looked like.
I personally couldn't tell the difference between the two. I just like the extra screen real estate and that there are two of them.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
I have a 24" curved monitor (AOC)
It's big AF and sometimes loose my mouse cursor.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
Maximilien wrote: sometimes lose my mouse cursor
That's a problem I have. I've had to set my mouse pointer to the largest cursors available.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I have dual 27" Samsung monitors (S27R35X) for work and dual 27" Asus gaming monitors (VG278) for personal. I really like them both.
I don't know many people who have bought the curved panels.
I know your monitor needs to be 4K compatible to work properly with 4K. I know that 4K does not render correctly on my monitors, and most streaming services will kick me to HD instead (automatically).
I recommend, Samsung, Asus, and Dell monitors. I think HP makes some nice ones too.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: I know your monitor needs to be 4K compatible to work properly with 4K
I spoke too soon on the 4K. I did some digging, and it looks like the graphics chip in my laptop supports a maximum of 1920x1080 (HD) resolution.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Here's my 2c.
I have 2 curved HP monitors tied to a laptop, so I actually have 3 monitors.
The curve is, at the end of the day, somewhat gimmicky - I don't notice any qualitative improvement to my computing experience, and when I look at my flat screen laptop monitor, it bows out because my brain compensated for the curve.
I would opt for a high quality single monitor. So why do I have 3? Because I can. But the end result is that I place one monitor in directly in front of me, so another big curved monitor is to my left, and the laptop to my right. Now I have these problems:
1. Anything I'm working on for a while gets moved to the monitor in front of me so I'm not turning my head.
2. Other stuff less important stuff gets moved to the left monitor, so I have to turn my head occasionally (and sometimes for a while) when working with stuff between the two.
3. The laptop monitor gets stuff I want open but hardly need to use, like folders, notes, notepad++, sometimes Excel.
The irony is, I'm quite happy with just a single laptop monitor when I work outside or off site (meaning not at home.)
The problem with dual monitors, curved or not, is that I don't want to look "down" on them, and tilting them causes a break in the space between them, so I have very carefully elevated them and aligned them so there isn't a "V" edge between them.
So like I said, a single high quality monitor I would think is the way to go. Probably flat screen - I suspect the curve would either be annoying or not even noticeable without true depth perception.
In fact, I just covered one eye and looked at my curved monitor and the depth perception of the curve disappeared almost instantly.
And sorry to hear about the loss of your right eye. ![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: And sorry to hear about the loss of your right eye.
Thanks Marc. It was kind of stupid, really. I fell asleep with my glasses on. I stood up too quickly and went down on my face. The glasses pushed into my eye socket and ruptured my right eye. Not a lot of pain (relatively few nerve endings back there), but the damage was done. I have a very nice prosthesis now, which moves well with my left eye based on the technology used.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Eye strain is also an issue for me. (Due to age  )
I have a 27 inch 4K Dell with 2560 pixels horizontally. Sometimes the pixels are just too damn small! That is my main objection to the monitor. A 10 pixel font is difficult to read. I need fairly strong glasses with this monitor.
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
Cp-Coder wrote: A 10 pixel font is difficult to read
That's going to be very, very small on any modern monitor. I would have trouble reading that back when I was binocular .
What I'm looking for is text at 'standard' sizes that is high-quality and large enough on the screen for readability.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I have found that the LG 4K monitors are extremely good. I have 3 of them hooked up. One 32 inch in the center and 2 27 inch ones on the sides.
They are sharp and bright. 
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
I would think a single bigger monitor. I'm reminded of Tony Stark on the bridge of the helicarrier holding one hand of his eye asking how Fury does it, looking at the multiple monitors turning back and forth.
"Must be tiring."
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, that's me. 
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't have the eyesight to make out details, 4K at 24 or even 27 inches is going to be a complete waste. I have a 40" 4K TV as my primary display, and if I didn't have good vision I wouldn't run it at its native resolution (even now is pushing it--with everything running at its native resolution, text is smaller on my 40" display than the 27" 1080p one sitting next to it).
When spreading out 4K over a smaller surface, everything's going to be tiny unless you rescale everything. If you're going to take a 3840x2160 pixel display and rescale everything to 200%, then you're essentially taking 2 pixels on each axis to render what was originally a single pixel. I don't understand the point of that.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: 4K at 24 or even 27 inches is going to be a complete waste
It turns out my laptop video doesn't support 4K resolution, so it's kind of a moot point. The reason I was interested in 4K was that even though text is being drawn at the same point size, you've got 4 times as many pixels to use for anti-aliasing and smoothing to improve readability.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Correct. But if you don't have the eyesight to see it...then over such a small surface, can you really tell the difference?
I mean, some people swear they can't tell the difference between a DVD (480p) and a Blu-ray (1080p) image, shown on a 60"+ TV. And the difference there is much more significant than going from 1080p to 4K.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
